Why I supported the war

I didn't support the war, because I didn't like setting the precedent that would be set by pre-emptive invasion. Then one of my friends, a Ph.D. in Philosophy, told me about Saddam. That was all that it took. I sincerely believed that war was not the answer, because I didn't want innocents being killed. Hence, logically, if innocents are already being killed in Iraq and if Saddam is already pre-emptively invading Kuwait, what the hell do I gain by holding back the executioner's axe? Nothing. I had no doubts after that.

Thanks, Erp. As for the accuracy of polls, the media will purposefully skew poll results and Democrat samples to disfavor Bush. But generally, Bush has lost about 20% among REpublicans. Don't worry about the Democrats, but that 20% among Republicans is crucial. You keep losing the Republicans, and you're going to lose, period. Bush understands this, which is why he is starting another media offense. He needs to keep the pressure though. Bush likes to attack one or two countries, and then stop. This is not a good idea. This is like your armored tank division running of gas before they reach the goal line, not a good thing.

While the polls are "largely accurate" as DQ says, that is not the same thing as saying that you should trust or believe the polls.

It is untrue that most people who supported the war thought we'd be out of it by now. The Jackosnians aren't favoring a draw down, in fact many Jacksonians favor a draw up, more troops not less. This means what? This means that the main supporting element of the Iraqi War expected that we'd have peace and stability, law and order, in iraq at this time. Because Bush is too soft on Sadr, etc, etc, Iran, Syria, etc etc, we do not have law and security. This upsets and disappoints many military and civilian people of the Jacksonian persuasion.

Most Americans don't care about troops in Japan, Germany, South Korea, France, etc etc. Simply because there is law and order there. It is harder to do in Iraq than Germany and Japan, simply because we beat the shit out of Germany and Japan, to be honest. We'd showed demonstrably that pocking with the United States of America leads to an early grave for you AND your family, AND your family's family.

Most people stop fighting after they realized that.

The Iraqis neither trust America nor is afraid of America. Nor is Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any other of our current enemies afraid of us.

The military is our outer shield, because of the weakness at the core of American political leadership, the outer shield is getting beat the crap on. Which, to be honest, is only killing so few of the military because the military has gotten a lot harder since Vietnam, to kill. Which is a good thing. But still, that is not sustainable if law and order is not brought about.

The strategy of Bush, to let the Iraqis take hold, has its merits. But the same problems we had bringing order to Iraq, is the same problems the Iraqi government will face. If we hadn't solved those problems of law and security, why does Bush think the Iraqis will be better?

The obvious answer is that if we can get the terroists to kill Iraqis only, the American people would stop caring about our occupation forces, like the American people stopped caring about troops in Japan and SK. Cynical, but effective. However, it takes a long long long time to do.

My frustration, unlike others, is not with the time. The time is directly related to how many people you are willing to kill to stop the violence. If you aren't willing to do anything, you get looters in New Orleans. If you are willing to do the nuclear option, you get the peace and prosperity of Japan.

My frustration is with the details in Bush's strategy. I'm not going to tell Bush to change his strats like the Democrats, cause that is Bush's responsibility to make and not mine. However, I can tell him how to improve his tactics. Which suck, currently.

The best news I've heard is that a recent report is either done or coming out, an internal military comprehensive review, of lessons learned from OIF. This is the first such report, since the one did in WWII that lead to the accurate understanding of Japan's Emperor system and Shintoism principles. Because we paid money to study Japan and how their citizens thought and viewed the war, we were able to force Japan to surrender rather than fight to the death. We purposefully did not bomb the Imperial Palace, because we KNEW that without the Emperor we would have to fight japan to the death.

It is good news for Iraq, because with this additional understanding, proper tactics may finally have a chance to be constructed.

What most people don't realize is that the military brass in Iraq has no idea how to win hearts and minds. Their plan changes every year. First it was get reconstruction, then it was train Iraqis, then it was body armor and IEDs, then it was... etc. The only people with any idea how to win hearts and minds is the military platoon leaders and military company leaders, brigade leaders, etc. The military has solved their cluelessness by giving their troops more initiative and authority, less red tape. But that doesn't replace central strategy, however.